Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (3) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hip. He was a minor and on his attaining majority he is said to have become the third partner. M. Rayappa Gounder, the managing partner of that firm, is said to have died on January 16, 1974, and by virtue of clause 15 of the partnership deed, his widow is said to have succeeded to his share in the partnership assets. The petitioner, Rajagopal, became the managing partner on the death of his brother, Rayappa Gounder. It is said that all the permits and registration certificates for the vehicles operating in the various routes for the business of the firm were standing in the name of Rayappa Gounder. On the death of Rayappa Gounder, the petitioner, as the managing partner of the firm, applied to the State Transport Authority for transfer o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onally and in view of the service of notice on him under r. 2 any transfer by him or his legal representative would be incompetent. That is the background for the issue of exhibit P-7. The petitioner has come to this court on the ground that exhibit P-7 is incompetent and that the said direction should not persuade the State transport authority to revoke exhibit P-2 and should not also stand in the way of transfer of ownership of the vehicles in the name of the current managing partner of the firm in accordance with the application submitted by him. In support of this plea the case of the petitioner is that Rayappa Gounder had taken registration of the vehicles in his name only as a managing partner of the firm and, therefore, the transfer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er words, the determination of this disputed question as to ownership of the vehicles is not only not easy, but is appropriately not one to be made by this court in these proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner may not get a favourable response to his invitation to this court to enter upon an adjudication of this dispute. If the relief in the petition depended upon such an adjudication, I should have, without any hesitation, declined to interfere. But the main prayer of the petitioner is occasioned by the issue of exhibit P-7. This is a letter by the TRO directing the Regional Transport Officer, Palghat, not to permit the transfer of ownership of any of the motor vehicles registered in the name of Rayappa Gounder. The question, which falls .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o be one conferring any power on the TRO and, if so, the question of incidental power may not arise. That provision, as is evident from the setting in which it appears, is evidently framed with the object of preventing transfers being effected so as to prejudice the interests of the revenue. Even after a defaulter is served with a notice, if he chooses to transfer properties standing in his name and there is no attachment at the time of such transfer, normally such transfer would be good enough. It is only on an attachment being effected that any transfer thereafter would be subject to the liability which has occasioned the attachment. There would necessarily be a time-lag between the service of notice and the attachment of properties. Such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this court in Kesavan Namboodiri v. State [1976] KLT 427 [FB]. That was a case where the words " shall be invalid " occurring in s. 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was read down by the court to mean shall be invalid to the extent it would operate to defeat the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. But here the rule does not even provide that the transfer shall not be valid. R. 16(1) only provides that it shall not be competent for the defaulter to effect the transfer mentioned in the rule. That would mean that such transfers, if made, would not operate to defeat the revenue. Nevertheless, as between the parties who enter into such transfers, such transfers would be good enough and operative. If this be the case, I fail to see any power in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates